greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Which is why scientists do not usually debate issues. They publish papers in refereed scientific journals. If anyone has problems with the content, they to are published. Then the originating writer answers those objects in writing. Facts, figures and rigorous mathematical reasoning carry the burden of argumentation.
Which is why I love science and math and I detest theology and politics.
ruveyn
Well, that's a point from scientific related issues such as creationism, the supernatural, etc. but even so, how about consensus? in any case I don't think that actually works for non-scientific issues (things not related to natural science) such as psychology, sociology and ethics, important decision making, I mean, debating seems to be a necessity for those things.
For me, debates happen with my fiancee and I. Not heated debates, but more of a discussion of "Where do we wish to go? What do we want to do? Which is more cost effective? Which is more fun?", and such are issues related to the psuedo-scientific field of microeconomics involving such things as elasticity of demand and utility versus opportunity cost of time and income. For all the mathematics, terminology, and high soundedness, the human factor of continually changing wants and desires stifles exact mathematical comprehension of the subject making it even more chaotic and far less predictable than the weather.
08 Apr 2010, 1:01 am
